Ward v. Corbally, Gartland & Rappleyea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ward v. Corbally, Gartland & Rappleyea

225 A.D.2d 688, 639 N.Y.2d 460, 639 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2619

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 18, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 688 (Ward v. Corbally, Gartland & Rappleyea) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ward v. Corbally, Gartland & Rappleyea, 225 A.D.2d 688, 639 N.Y.2d 460, 639 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff’s claim for underinsurance benefits was subject to arbitration as provided by the respondent’s insurance policy. Further, the respondent did not waive its right to rely on the policy’s arbitration clause by initially disclaiming coverage or by later defending the propriety of its disclaimer in court (see, Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v Donath, 164 AD2d 889; see also, Matter of Vanguard Ins. Co. [Polchlopek], 18 NY2d 376, 382). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the reduction-in-coverage clause relating to offsets for underinsurance benefits is enforceable since the respondent’s policy has a single-limit combined uninsurance/underinsurance endorsement (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz — N. J. Mfrs. Ins. Co.], 81 NY2d 219; cf., Matter of United Community Ins. Co. v Mucatel, 127 Misc 2d 1045, 1046, affd 119 AD2d 1017, affd 69 NY2d 777).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit (see, Matter of Valente v Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 77 NY2d 894; Fox v Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 132 AD2d 17). Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff’s claim for underinsurance benefits was subject to arbitration as provided by the respondent’s insurance policy. Further, the respondent did not waive its right to rely on the policy’s arbitration clause by initially disclaiming coverage or by later defending the propriety of its disclaimer in court (see, Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v Donath, 164 AD2d 889; see also, Matter of Vanguard Ins. Co. [Polchlopek], 18 NY2d 376, 382). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the reduction-in-coverage clause relating to offsets for underinsurance benefits is enforceable since the respondent’s policy has a single-limit combined uninsurance/underinsurance endorsement (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz — N. J. Mfrs. Ins. Co.], 81 NY2d 219; cf., Matter of United Community Ins. Co. v Mucatel, 127 Misc 2d 1045, 1046, affd 119 AD2d 1017, affd 69 NY2d 777).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit (see, Matter of Valente v Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 77 NY2d 894; Fox v Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 132 AD2d 17). Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 688, 639 N.Y.2d 460, 639 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-corbally-gartland-rappleyea-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack